Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement

Tuesday

Jan 29, 2013 at 3:15 AM

A good friend of mine and a dedicated NRA member once told me that if you buy a gun for protection, you had better be prepared to use it. For the one-third of all American households that own guns, I presume this is the case. But this means that two-thirds of American households, the “nonowners,” are not ready to shoot an intruder. Instead, people who don’t own a gun would rather rely on paid professionals — our local and state police force — for protection. This is why most people in “no-gun households” take offense to NRA President Wayne LaPierre’s suggestion that we place armed guards in every school in the country instead of trying to remove tactical weapons from our environment. The second amendment to the Constitution gives people the right to own a gun, but it does not obligate them to do so.

The NRA’s recommendation to place armed guards in every school across the country poses some disturbing problems. Without some type of restriction on tactical weapons, what kind of “firepower” are we going to arm Mr. LaPierre’s school guards with? Who’s going to pay for their training? Who’s going to pay for their weaponry? How is that going to affect our tax rate? Will having many disparate armed forces responding to a shooter increase the chances of a “friendly fire” situation? Or will we have to slow our response to an emergency in order to coordinate the various armed responders? Do we really want our schoolchildren seeing guards armed with pistols and AK-47’s every day?

The gun debate has been dominated by gun owners protecting their second amendment rights by interpreting the second amendment as broadly as possible. Most state and federal laws not only allow access to almost every type of firearm imaginable, but they also restrict federal gathering and release of information about statistics regarding gun sales and which weapons have been used for mass shootings and illegal activities. Some states, such as Florida have even gone so far as to restrict doctors from discussing guns with their patients — a law that seems particularly counterproductive in view of the events in Newtown.

Quite a few gun owners see the second amendment as a black and white, all or nothing issue. They see the only alternative to unrestricted access to all firearms as no firearms at all. How many times have you heard the mantra: “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns?” The truth is that most people who don’t own guns don’t want to take the guns away from those that do. Most “nonowners” agree with the great majority of gun owners who need their guns for: farming, hunting, target shooting and self-defense. The problem most nonowners have with the second amendment is the ownership of “tactical weapons” such as assault rifles, sniper rifles and weapons with large ammo magazines. If you really need an assault weapon with a large ammo magazine to defend yourself, then you might want to brush up on your social skills and make fewer enemies.

The United States needs to develop a policy that respects the second amendment but also protects the rights of nonowners of guns — who make up the other two thirds of American households. This means that we need to keep tactical weapons on the battlefield and away from the ball field and the corn field. We need to track guns more carefully so that our firemen and policemen don’t accidentally run into a “misunderstanding” while investigating a call by a concerned neighbor. There should be enforceable consequences to people who misuse their right to bear arms, such as buying a gun for someone who has doesn’t qualify for one or shooting while intoxicated. Most importantly, we need to keep the doctor — patient relationship completely separate from the guns rights issue. Doctors must be free to ask about guns and gun safety in the setting of mental illness, emotionally labile adolescents or adults with signs of dementia.

The tragedies in Aurora, Tucson, and Newtown were the results of both mental illness and the relatively easy access to guns of a tactical nature. Both problems need to be addressed. Many gun owners, including Wayne LaPierre disagree, stating the problem is entirely one of mental illness. I would cordially invite them and all like-minded individuals to “put their money where their mouth is” and lobby for and donate to as many mental health organizations as they can.